About your Search

20121121
20121129
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10
and then later our news maker of the morning warren buffett, his fiscal cliff advice to washington all coming up at 8:00 eastern time this morning. le an] this december, remember -- ♪ you can stay in and like something... ♪ [ car alarm deactivates ] ♪ ...or you can get out there with your family and actually like something. ♪ the lexus december to remember sales event is on, offering some of our best values of the year. this is the pursuit of perfection. twins. i didn't see them coming. i have obligations. cute obligations, but obligations. i need to rethink the core of my portfolio. what i really need is sleep. introducing the ishares core, building blocks for the heart of your portfolio. find out why 9 out of 10 large professional investors choose ishares for their etfs. ishares by blackrock. call 1-800-ishares for a prospectus which includes investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses. read and consider it carefully before investing. risk includes possible loss of principal. if you're a man with low testosterone, you should know that axiron is here. the only underarm treatment
, raising the marginal tax rate on the top end is spur purely a symbolic t. and the reason warren buffett is able to say, well, my secretary is taxed at a higher rate than i am is not because of that rate, it's because of the capital gains rate at 15%. >> we need to ask him about that, too. and i'm sure he would agree capital gains rates, which were about 28% under bill clinton when we had the roaring '90s, are at 15% right now. i've got to say, this is one of those areas where, when i was in congress, i wanted the capital gains rate to go down, thought it was too high at 28%. it's at 15% now. if you want to look at income disparity, you know, in part, the 15% capital gains tax rate and carried interest allows the super wealthy to get by paying a hell of a lot less than middle-class americans. >> if you're for fairness, that's where the fairness is. that's why the rich don't pay as much tax as the others. the marginal tax rate is marginal. if you raise it a couple of percentage points, it doesn't change much. if you raise that capital gains rate, that's where the big money is made. >> he
over and over. >> you saw warren buffett this morning. >> some interesting points. he had an alternative minimum tax he had been talking about for the really wealthy. >> 30% or something. >> anybody from 1 to $10 million. also talked a little bit about raising the -- >> same thing he's been saying all along. >> he added that when it comes to who should be paying the higher taxes, he wants the threshold to be $500,000. >> and you see steven rattner on on talking about capital gains, deductions and things you've talked about a lot. >> time for the global markets report. ross westgate totally still confuse aed about thanksgiving and pilgrims. what was all the hoopla about? you celebrate boxing or something, don't you? like we lost a great boxer. is that what you celebrate? what is boxing day? >> boxing day, the day of a christmas. >> you wrap all your presents in boxes? >> i think it's something to do with all the presents. i'm not quite sure. >> yeah, put them in boxes. >> maybe. >> so you ignored our thanksgiving. but feeling okay again? >> yeah. you know, it's okay. it's a
secretary? >> who? >> warren buffett was interviewed on charlie rose and asked -- remember we asked him and he was erskine bowles. on charlie rose, he said the perfect person would be jamie dimon. >> wish i would have heard that before he came on. >> jamie's not going to do that, is he? >> i don't think james pie will that. i still think in this environment, i don't think the president is ready to take on -- >> they don't see eye to eye on a lot of things. he wouldn't even talk about how he really feels. >> last january he was on with you you from davos and still a democrat barely was his wording on it. but he'd also like to have someone who understands the markets. >> get around all the free market stuff, completely abolish free markets? >> if europe become as big issue, if something rises up with the bond markets -- >> that was the point warren buffett made. he said if you want someone who understands the markets and the turmoil that we'll be in. and also they even talked about the london whale and what that meant. >> probably won't be a bankster this time. we had a guy who ran a meta
had warren buffett on the show yesterday. warren buffett said raising the top marginal tax rate to 39.6% wouldn't catch any of the top income earners in america. that it would not impact them at all. now why shouldn't republicans be focusing on that, the real political battle in washington today, instead of focusing on a battle they know they're going to lose, against a woman of color after they just got shellacked in the polls among people of color and females. why are they doing this? and, andrea, a bigger question, as we go to a new congress, is john mccain going to continue to have the disproportionate impact that he has on foreign policy in the republican senate caucus? mika and i talked to so many people over the past two, three years that say we want, republican senators, we want out of afghanistan but, you know what, we just sort of stay out of john's way. how many times have we heard that? >> a lot. it's disturbing. >> we hear it all the time. they stay out of his way. are they going to blindly follow and, again, i love and respect senator mccain, but i don't want my party to
from the white house. it comes on the same day warren buffett writing in the "new york times" in an op-ed saying rich is $500,000 a year, and let's tax them. let's have a 30% minimum tax for the income above $1 million of rich people. look what he said here. the "forbes" 400, wealthiest individuals in america hit a new group record. $1.7 trillion, more than five times the $300 billion total in 1992. he says you know, my gang has done pretty well. so leave the middle class alone. and so these two kind of the 1-2 punch from the white house perspective, at least, today on what we should be doing in debt talks. >> buffett is interesting. he said he doesn't think it will be that big a deal if we go off the cliff. >> he says don't worry about raising taxes on investments and income from investments. he said, i will do a good deal, because it's a good deal. not because my taxes are going to be a certain rate. so he has pounded this -- beat this drum for some time. but this is the white house, the latest from the white house on the fiscal cliff and how it would hurt the middle class. >> christ
officials will behave like spoiled children, and warren buffett took the gop to school today, quote, let's forget about the rich and ultra rich going on strike and stuffing their ample funds under their mattresses if, gasp, capital gains rates and ordinary income rates are increased. the ultra rich, including me, says mr. buffett, will forever pursue investment opportunities. so he's calling for a minimum tax on millionaires and billionaires. will republicans listen? >> well, it's a sensible way. if we're going to have a deal, we will have to see some kind of compromise. a minimum tax on people making over $1 million a year can generate a half it trillion in a ten-year scale. if you include deductions you don't necessarily have to go to 39%. you can go to 37% if you are looking for compromise. but i think there's a bigger issue here as well, and that is the idea this is a slightly critical towards the democrats, the biggest issue that this country faces right now is getting us back to 4% economic growth, 3% or 4% economic growth and seeing wages increase right now. this whole idea that d
on "squawk" this morning. a number of gop lawmakers say they will reject the no-tax pledge. warren buffett taking a jab at norquist this morning in an op-ed in the "times." he says let's forget about the rich and ultrarich going on strike and stuffing ample funds under their mattresses if capital gains are increased. ultrarich will forever pursue investment opportunities. >> i thought that was right. i thought it was right. we always hear job creators. i started a lot of businesses. they never make any money at the beginning. i don't want -- a great line there. i don't want to be so successful i have to pay a lot of taxes. that's stupid. that's something from someone who never ran a business. the late george mcgovern where he discovered how hard it was to be a businessman, you don't create a job. you create a job for tremendous success but you accept losses at the beginning. you never take an investment and say i don't want to do that because i'm afraid i'll have to pay taxes. you just don't. >> regulation sort of dealing with a lot of red tape which we also hear about as an impediment. >>
, taxes, things that distort economic activity. >> warren buffett wrote an interesting op-ed. he is a supporter of the president but said he does not favor raising rates on people making more than $250,000 but said he would support it for people making $500,000. is there an income level where you support or at least not oppose vehemently the idea of racing rates? >> again, you know, i don't think that's a constructive direction to go in. we -- you know, we could just keep adding ever more brackets, and ever more burdens on people who are productive or have a couple of good years in their business. i think all of that discourages economic growth and discourages risk taking and entrepreneurship. so i'm in favor of moving in the direction of a flatter tax system. of fewer brackets, lower rates, simplicity where we get rid of all the distortions that happen in the tax code, rather than speculating about how many different new brackets we should create. >> i want to get to benghazi. on taxes you talk about closing loopholes and reducing destructions. grover norquist says that would vi
, warren buffett said 16.5% and it is coming in as revenue and i have heard lower. spending, it is somewhere on the range of 22%-24%. to me, that is the reality of what is happening. a decline in revenue and an increase in spending for a variety of reasons we could go through. if we're serious about deficit reduction, we often -- we have to move back. the closer we can get to an 18% level as we bring down spending, the more likely we are to have a stable economy in the years ahead. let's talk about what has happened since the time when we did have our budget in balance. the chairman of the appropriations committee of dates the figures from time to time, but let's take a look at where we are today compared to where we were in fiscal year 2001 when the government actually ran a $128 billion surplus. compared to this figure, we are spending less on non-security discretionary spending than we were then. in other words, the growth in spending has not been in the non-defense discretionary accounts. second, the cost of security programs in that same time income since we were last i
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)